High Court · 2025

HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 28.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.441 of 2025M.Santhalakshmi... Petitionervs.1. The State of Tamil Naadurep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli.Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entice records connected with the detention order passed in MHS.Confdl.No.06/2025 dated 18.01.2025 on the file Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's husband i.e., Mayandi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Andiyappan Thevar alias John Padian, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.For Petitioner: Mr. N. PragalathanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Mayandi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Andiyappan Thevar alias John Padian. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in MHS.Confdl.No.06/2025 dated 18.01.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 20253. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents furnished at Page No.73, Volume I of the booklet is partially in Tamil and partially in English and the translation in respect of the English portion was not furnished to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that the detenu was unable to understand the same and thereby deprived of his valuable right to make an effective representation.4. On a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the documents furnished at Page No.73, Volume I of the booklet is partially in Tamil and partially in English, the translation in respect of the English portion was not furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the non furnishing of the translated portion of the said document would deprive the detenu of his valuable right to make an effective representation. It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025the safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation effectively against the detention order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:''6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.......9. However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.......16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''6. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all force to the case on hand as we find that the said document relied on by the Detaining Authority at Page No. 73, Volume I of the booklet is partially in English and the translation in respect of the English portion was not furnished to the petitioner, to the detenu, and thereby it has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025detention order. To be noted, this constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order.7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in MHS.Confdl.No.06/2025 dated 18.01.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mayandi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Andiyappan Thevar alias John Padian, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 28.08.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotrpPage No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025To:1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli.4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai.Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No. 441 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.trpORDER MADE INHCP(MD)No.441 of 2025DATED : 28.08.2025Page No.8 of 8